these duties are essentially clerical and ministerial. (...) To be sure, considerable damage could result from the negligent or dishonest performance of a notary’s duties. But the same could be said for the duties performed by cashiers, building inspectors, the janitors who clean up the offices of public officials, and numerous other categories of personnel upon whom we depend for careful, honest service. What distinguishes such personnel from those to whom the political function exception is properly applied is that the latter are invested either with policymaking responsibility or broad discretion in the execution of public policy that requires the routine exercise of authority over individuals. Neither of these characteristics pertains to the function performed by Texas notaries. (...) there is nothing in the record indicating that resident aliens, as a class, are so incapable of familiarizing themselves with Texas law as to justify the State’s absolute and class-wide exclusion. The possibility that some resident aliens are unsuitable for the position cannot justify a wholesale ban against all resident aliens. We conclude that Article 5949(2) violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed (...).35 66. Additionally, in Europe, the European Union Court of Justice found in a series of decisions that Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Austria, Germany, and Greece had violated the freedom of establishment36 recognized in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and that the requirement established in its legislation that one must be a citizen to exercise the notary profession was discrimination based on nationality.37 For example, in the decision regarding Greece, the court found as follows: However, the fact that notarial activities pursue objectives in the public interest, in particular to guarantee the lawfulness and legal certainty of documents entered into by individuals, constitutes an overriding reason in the public interest capable of justifying restrictions of Article 43 EC deriving from the particular features of the activities of notaries, such as the framework within which notaries act as a result of the procedures by which they are appointed, their limited number and the restriction of their territorial jurisdiction, or the rules governing their remuneration, their independence, their disqualification from holding other office and their protection against removal, provided that those restrictions enable those objectives to be attained and are necessary for that purpose. (...) As regards the enforceability of an authentic instrument, it must be observed, as the Hellenic Republic submits, that enforceability enables the obligation embodied in the instrument to be enforced without the prior intervention of the court. The enforceability of an authentic instrument does not, however, derive from powers possessed by the notary which are directly and specifically connected with the exercise of official authority. So, while the notary’s endorsement of the enforcement clause on the authentic instrument does give it enforceable status, that status is based on the intention of the parties to sign a document or agreement, after its conformity with the law has been checked by the notary, and confer enforceability on it. (...) In those circumstances, it must be concluded that the activities of a notary, as they are defined currently in the Greek legal system, are not connected with the exercise of official authority within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 45 EC. It must consequently be declared that the nationality requirement imposed by the Greek legislation as a requirement for access to the profession of notary constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality prohibited by Article 43 EC.38 67. Likewise, the European Court of Justice found in 2015 that the Republic of Lithuania had failed to comply with article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, regarding the freedom of establishment by requiring nationality to access the notary profession. The court took into account the multiple and essential functions that notaries performed in Lithuania, some of which are similar to the functions performed by notaries in Guatemala. The court found: (...) In the present case, the national legislation at issue reserves access to the profession of notary to Latvian nationals, thus enshrining a difference in treatment on the ground of nationality which is prohibited in principle by Article 49 EC. The Republic of Latvia submits, however, that the activities of notaries are outside the scope of Article 49 TFEU U.S. Supreme Court, Bernal v. Fainter, Secretary of State of Texas, et al., 1984. This right entails “allowing a national of the European Union to participate, on a stable and continuous basis, in the economic life of a Member State other than his State of origin and to profit therefrom, so contributing to economic and social interpenetration within the European Union in the sphere of activities of self-employed persons.” See judgment of the Court of May 24, 2011, C-50/08. 37 See judgments C-47/08, C-50/08, C-51/08, C-53/08, C-54/08, C-61/08. Also see European Union press release, Nationality requirements notaries: the Commission takes steps to ensure compliance with the principle of non-discrimination in eight member states, October 17, 2007. 38 Judgment of the Court of May 24, 2011, Matter C-61/08. 35 36 14